Skip to main content
Skip to content
1 duplicate copy in the archive
Case File
d-36498House OversightDeposition

House Oversight Deposition Designation Dispute Highlights Procedural Arguments

The excerpt discusses procedural arguments over deposition designations in a civil case, with no specific names, dates, financial transactions, or allegations of misconduct involving high‑profile acto Counsel argues the opposing side failed to timely designate inadmissible testimony. Reference to using adverse inference against witnesses based on their answers. Mention of Southern District reporte

Date
November 11, 2025
Source
House Oversight
Reference
House Oversight #011452
Pages
1
Persons
3
Integrity
No Hash Available

Summary

The excerpt discusses procedural arguments over deposition designations in a civil case, with no specific names, dates, financial transactions, or allegations of misconduct involving high‑profile acto Counsel argues the opposing side failed to timely designate inadmissible testimony. Reference to using adverse inference against witnesses based on their answers. Mention of Southern District reporte

Tags

depositionslegal-strategycivil-litigationlegal-exposurehouse-oversightcourt-procedure

Ask AI About This Document

0Share
PostReddit
Review This Document

Extracted Text (OCR)

EFTA Disclosure
Text extracted via OCR from the original document. May contain errors from the scanning process.
10 id. 12 13 14 L5 16 ne) 18 life) 20 21 22 23 24 25 149 H3vlgiu2 leading, they could both be exact opposite questions. The witnesses would say the Fifth to everything, and then you look at the jury and you say, okay, now you can impose an adverse inference against anybody you want to based on the questions that the lawyers asked. I mean, that's really what this ends up being, and it's a waste of time, and it is of no evidentiary significance. Then the last point, which I'm just going to need to correct Mr. Cassell on, the plaintiffs were saying somehow that we were untimely in not designating portions of these depositions which we believe are wholly inadmissible, and the point of our reply was, wait a minute, you didn't designate any of this testimony until after the designation date was over. (Continued on next page) SOUTHERN DISTRICT REPORTERS, P.C. (212) 805-0300

Technical Artifacts (1)

View in Artifacts Browser

Email addresses, URLs, phone numbers, and other technical indicators extracted from this document.

Phone(212) 805-0300

Related Documents (6)

House OversightFBI ReportNov 11, 2025

Jeffrey Epstein Child Sex Trafficking Investigation – FBI Records, Deleted Pages, Non‑Prosecution Deal, High‑Profile Connections

The compiled documents reveal a dense web of FBI case files, internal forms, and communications that reference Jeffrey Epstein’s illegal sexual activities with minors, a secret non‑prosecution agreeme FBI case number 31E‑MM‑108062 repeatedly references ‘Child Locate’ entries and deleted pages (b6, b7 Multiple internal FD‑515 forms list Jeffrey Epstein as a subject (named explicitly on 09/30/2008 e

181p
House OversightUnknown

Deposition testimony reveals attorney knowingly filed 2014 pleading accusing Prince Andrew and Alan Dershowitz of sexual abuse

Deposition testimony reveals attorney knowingly filed 2014 pleading accusing Prince Andrew and Alan Dershowitz of sexual abuse The passage provides a direct quotation from an attorney confirming that a December 30, 2014 filing was the first public allegation against Prince Andrew and Professor Alan Dershowitz. It identifies specific clients (S.R., E.W., L.M., M., B.) and mentions prior deposition requests linking Dershowitz to Jeffrey Epstein. While the names are high‑profile, the information largely restates already public allegations and does not disclose new documents, financial flows, or undisclosed communications, limiting its investigative novelty. Key insights: Attorney confirms the 12/30/2014 filing accused Prince Andrew and Alan Dershowitz of sexual abuse.; The filing was the first public allegation by the attorney on behalf of any client.; Attorney acknowledges prior deposition requests (2009, 2011) that referenced Dershowitz’s alleged presence with Epstein and underage girls.

1p
House OversightUnknown

BuzzFeed Review Finds Little Hard Evidence Linking Bill Clinton to Jeffrey Epstein Crimes, but Flight Logs and Lawyer Claims Provide Leads

BuzzFeed Review Finds Little Hard Evidence Linking Bill Clinton to Jeffrey Epstein Crimes, but Flight Logs and Lawyer Claims Provide Leads The passage summarizes a detailed review of over 2,000 pages of court filings that confirm Bill Clinton flew on Epstein's jet multiple times and that attorneys have attempted to use Clinton's connection in lawsuits. While it concludes there is no concrete proof of sexual misconduct, it identifies specific leads – flight logs, attorney Jack Scarola’s threats, alleged settlement negotiations involving Alan Dershowitz and Ken Starr, and pending lawsuits by [REDACTED - Survivor] – that merit further investigative follow‑up. Key insights: Clinton appears on 13 flight logs for Epstein's private 727 between 2002‑2003, often with Epstein aide Sarah Kellen and Clinton aide Doug Band.; Attorney Jack Scarola warned of "extortionate threats, power, wealth or political pressure" when asked for proof linking Clinton.; [REDACTED - Survivor]' lawsuit alleges Epstein forced her sexual exploitation by "adult male peers" including high‑level figures; she claims Clinton was present on Little St. James Island but later recanted sexual claims against him.

1p
House OversightOtherNov 11, 2025

Allegations that Alan Dershowitz Provided Incomplete or Falsified Flight Logs to Law‑Enforcement in the Jeffrey Epstein Investigation

The passage supplies concrete, time‑stamped allegations that a high‑profile attorney (Alan Dershowitz) selectively produced flight‑log records covering Jan‑Sep 2005 while omitting an Oct 2005 log, and Selective production of flight logs covering Jan‑Sep 2005, excluding an Oct 2005 log. Inconsistencies between Dershowitz‑provided logs and pilot Dave Rogers’ logs. Testimony that the logs may have be

3p
House OversightUnknown

Critique of Advisory Committee's Selective Application of Crime Victims' Rights Act in Federal Criminal Rules

Critique of Advisory Committee's Selective Application of Crime Victims' Rights Act in Federal Criminal Rules The passage discusses internal procedural debates within the Judicial Advisory Committee about rule amendments related to victims' rights. It mentions no high‑profile individuals, agencies, or financial transactions, offering only a scholarly critique without actionable leads for investigations. Key insights: Advisory Committee amended Rule 18 to address victims' right to fairness but not other rules.; Committee used CVRA dignity and privacy provisions as a basis for amendments, ignoring the fairness provision.; Historical precedent shows the Committee often amends rules to avoid litigation, e.g., 1979 present‑sentence withdrawal amendment.

1p
House OversightFinancial RecordNov 11, 2025

Alfredo Rodriguez’s stolen “golden nugget” – a bound book linking Jeffrey Epstein to dozens of world leaders and billionaires

The passage describes a former Epstein employee, Alfredo Rodriguez, who allegedly stole a bound book containing the names, addresses and phone numbers of high‑profile individuals (e.g., Henry Kissinge Rodriguez claims the book lists names, addresses and phone numbers of dozens of influential individu He tried to sell the book to an undercover FBI agent for $50,000, indicating awareness of its valu

88p

Forum Discussions

This document was digitized, indexed, and cross-referenced with 1,500+ persons in the Epstein files. 100% free, ad-free, and independent.

Support This ProjectSupported by 1,550+ people worldwide
Annotations powered by Hypothesis. Select any text on this page to annotate or highlight it.